nsfor2010 wrote:But I think there mighjt be good applicants that they would actually want at the school that were so turned off at being WL that they withdrew, however illogical one might think that is. Who knows, UM might know this but also believes that the net effect is beneficial.

I think that they do know it and do believe that it is beneficial. There's no doubt that Michigan, Penn, Virginia, or any other school between 6 and 14 would love to have the best applicants in the pool at their school. But the fact of the matter is that they know that there is an overwhelming probability of those students attending one of the top five. Consequently, they gain nothing by accepting them, watching them withdraw, and then producing a dismal yield that undercuts whatever ambitions they may have of rising in the rankings.

adameus wrote:Perhaps they saw some of my posts on here and considered me a jackass?

It's doubtful that most top law schools (with the startling exception of Yale) regularly peruse these threads and use the comments in them as a variable in the admissions process. Many TLS regulars, including myself, have made a number of jackass comments on the boards here without paying for them in any perceptible or meaningful way.

Yes I realize that, both that its very unlikely that they have read my posts on here and that you have made jackass posts on these boards. I think TCR is that they just didn't like my application, but if you think it hurts to get YP, it hurts even more to get dinged! I think I'm over it now though

The conventional wisdom is that YP = waitlist, but I do think that there is ample proof for YP equating to some dings this cycle. Thus, the two outcomes are not incompatible.

I think the most interesting thing about this discussion is the way lsn now allows us to actually evaluate some of the claims admissions deans make. It would appear that there is at least a little spin involved in most of what they say. One thing I would ask is:

Of the segment of people it looks like they might be using the wait list to manage their yield on, how many are reporting decisions? Is there perhaps another acceptance round in this range yet to come?

nsfor2010 wrote: Additionally, I think it is ironic that on a website where the majority feels like law schools focus too heavily on the numbers, people all of sudden feel assured that the process is working correctly when they are admitted but others with better numbers are not.

nsfor2010 wrote: Additionally, I think it is ironic that on a website where the majority feels like law schools focus too heavily on the numbers, people all of sudden feel assured that the process is working correctly when they are admitted but others with better numbers are not.

This.

Maybe my logic is broken but why is this ironic?

So people think law schools focus too heavily on the numbers ... so they think schools should focus less heavily on the numbers ... then feel the process is working correctly when they are admitted when people with better numbers are not ... which means schools weren't focusing heavily on the numbers...

nsfor2010 wrote: Additionally, I think it is ironic that on a website where the majority feels like law schools focus too heavily on the numbers, people all of sudden feel assured that the process is working correctly when they are admitted but others with better numbers are not.

This.

Maybe my logic is broken but why is this ironic?

So people think law schools focus too heavily on the numbers ... so they think they should focus less heavily on the numbers ... and are then happy when they are admitted when people with better numbers are not ... which means schools weren't focusing heavily on the numbers...

nsfor2010 wrote: Additionally, I think it is ironic that on a website where the majority feels like law schools focus too heavily on the numbers, people all of sudden feel assured that the process is working correctly when they are admitted but others with better numbers are not.

This.

Maybe my logic is broken but why is this ironic?

So people think law schools focus too heavily on the numbers ... so they think they should focus less heavily on the numbers ... and are then happy when they are admitted when people with better numbers are not ... which means schools weren't focusing heavily on the numbers...

That seems consistent to me.

They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

I think the point is that both are consistent stories, so there's no irony in choosing to believe in either of them.

nsfor2010 wrote: Additionally, I think it is ironic that on a website where the majority feels like law schools focus too heavily on the numbers, people all of sudden feel assured that the process is working correctly when they are admitted but others with better numbers are not.

This.

Maybe my logic is broken but why is this ironic?

So people think law schools focus too heavily on the numbers ... so they think they should focus less heavily on the numbers ... and are then happy when they are admitted when people with better numbers are not ... which means schools weren't focusing heavily on the numbers...

That seems consistent to me.

They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

I actually interpreted the irony as:

1. People argue that law schools focus heavily on numbers.2. People are pleased when there is proof that law schools may not focus as heavily on numbers as they had argued.3. Therefore, people are pleased when there is evidence that they may be wrong. It's ironic for people to be pleased by being wrong.

scribelaw wrote:They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

so they were focusing on the numbers either way? if they admitted people with good scores..... then they were focusing on the numbers.... if they reject people with good scores .... then they were focusing on the numbers!

scribelaw wrote:They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

so they were focusing on the numbers either way? if they admitted people with good scores..... then they were focusing on the numbers.... if they reject people with good scores .... then they were focusing on the numbers!

seems like a can't win situation.

Your avatar makes me inclined to sprinkle the contents of a salt-cellar over your comments in this thread.

scribelaw wrote:They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

so they were focusing on the numbers either way? if they admitted people with good scores..... then they were focusing on the numbers.... if they reject people with good scores .... then they were focusing on the numbers!

seems like a can't win situation.

Your avatar makes me inclined to sprinkle the contents of a salt-cellar over your comments in this thread.

that's fine. I'm not hiding it. I'd still like to know what kind of results would make someone say... oh look... they're doing it holistically...as opposed to YP. If you're going to say "they're focusing on the numbers" regardless of whether high number people are accepted or rejected, then your conclusion seems pretty silly.

scribelaw wrote:They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

so they were focusing on the numbers either way? if they admitted people with good scores..... then they were focusing on the numbers.... if they reject people with good scores .... then they were focusing on the numbers!

seems like a can't win situation.

You said that UM's rejecting high-LSAT candidates indicates they weren't focused on the numbers.

There's a lot of evidence that that's not true. They just know that these candidates, overwhelmingly, won't attend, so they are protecting their yield rate. Which is their choice, but it's not like UM is being altruistic and really looking past numbers.

scribelaw wrote:They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

so they were focusing on the numbers either way? if they admitted people with good scores..... then they were focusing on the numbers.... if they reject people with good scores .... then they were focusing on the numbers!

seems like a can't win situation.

Your avatar makes me inclined to sprinkle the contents of a salt-cellar over your comments in this thread.

that's fine. I'm not hiding it. I'd still like to know what kind of results would make someone say... oh look... they're doing it holistically...as opposed to YP. If you're going to say "they're focusing on the numbers" regardless of whether high number people are accepted or rejected, then your conclusion seems pretty silly.

I'm sure UM's admissions do take more than numbers into account. They might, for example, accept one out of five applicants with a 3.8/167 (don't know if that's accurate, seems like it might be close). I'm sure they make those decisions on the basis of who has the strongest background and application.

I don't really blame UM for YPing. They are just playing the game, which they did not create. But it's silly to deny that this is what's happening.

scribelaw wrote:They were still focusing on the numbers. They were YPing.

so they were focusing on the numbers either way? if they admitted people with good scores..... then they were focusing on the numbers.... if they reject people with good scores .... then they were focusing on the numbers!

seems like a can't win situation.

You said that UM's rejecting high-LSAT candidates indicates they weren't focused on the numbers.

There's a lot of evidence that that's not true. They just know that these candidates, overwhelmingly, won't attend, so they are protecting their yield rate. Which is their choice, but it's not like UM is being altruistic and really looking past numbers.

What evidence? That high numbered people are rejected?

Here's my take on it. As your numbers get better and better, your odds of getting in get better and better. That number never quite hits 100% though.

Here is one thing...which might open a shitstorm of criticism in as of itself, but here it is. If admissions thinks you won't be a good fit or a good contributor to what we think of as a collegial environment, you're unlikely to be admitted. If admissions thinks that YOU think that you're just too cool for school, you're unlikely to be admitted.

How would anybody prove this? I have no idea. The good thing is that admissions doesn't have to.

If somebody is really desirable, there are things that the law school can do including throwing money at them. On the flip side, Dean Z has said that there are times she admits people while thinking that they're probably going somewhere else. Trust me... we have an ego. We think our law school is tres awesome and we expect that people will see that.

So let's look at yield protect. Yield (number of people who matriculate/number of people admitted) is not in the USNWR methodology. Acceptance rate is worth .025. For comparison, LSAT is worth .125 and GPA is worth .1. Given the number of people who have these kinds of astronomical numbers, how much does it move the dial to accept say... 10, 20 more high numbered folks? My guess is not that much. It would probably be more profitable rankings wise to accept them all. Acceptance rate is diluted through ALL THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY while LSAT and GPA numbers are only diluted through the pool of students who attend. Someday I'm going to run the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it only took 1/50 or so high numbered people accepting to make it more profitable to accept all of them (just off the cuff the applicant pool roughly 5x student body size and then LSAT/GPA worth about 10x more than acceptance rate).

quickquestionthanks wrote:This last page is a good example of why people don't being around lawyers. But at least we have each other.

One question, how would an admissions committee know who's who on the board? And if it's because you put a ton of personal info, why not remove it?

Some of us have stats that stand out a bit or information that we might mention from which one could infer something about our undergrad or perhaps extracurriculars. You can definitely edit posts or change information; a few people do fudge their LSN profiles for exactly that reason. But of course an alert Admissions Officer who was online at the right time might have noticed it before the TLSer has second thoughts and removes or edits it.

awesomepossum wrote:What evidence? That high numbered people are rejected?

Here's my take on it. As your numbers get better and better, your odds of getting in get better and better. That number never quite hits 100% though.

Here is one thing...which might open a shitstorm of criticism in as of itself, but here it is. If admissions thinks you won't be a good fit or a good contributor to what we think of as a collegial environment, you're unlikely to be admitted. If admissions thinks that YOU think that you're just too cool for school, you're unlikely to be admitted.

How would anybody prove this? I have no idea. The good thing is that admissions doesn't have to.

If somebody is really desirable, there are things that the law school can do including throwing money at them. On the flip side, Dean Z has said that there are times she admits people while thinking that they're probably going somewhere else. Trust me... we have an ego. We think our law school is tres awesome and we expect that people will see that.

So let's look at yield protect. Yield (number of people who matriculate/number of people admitted) is not in the USNWR methodology. Acceptance rate is worth .025. For comparison, LSAT is worth .125 and GPA is worth .1. Given the number of people who have these kinds of astronomical numbers, how much does it move the dial to accept say... 10, 20 more high numbered folks? My guess is not that much. It would probably be more profitable rankings wise to accept them all. Acceptance rate is diluted through ALL THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY while LSAT and GPA numbers are only diluted through the pool of students who attend. Someday I'm going to run the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it only took 1/50 or so high numbered people accepting to make it more profitable to accept all of them (just off the cuff the applicant pool roughly 5x student body size and then LSAT/GPA worth about 10x more than acceptance rate).

I still argue schools with small class sizes must yield protect; they can't admit just everyone they like so they must admit people they like and are likely to attend. Thus, the majority of students they admit would be in the ideal range of LSAT and GPA for the school and most likely to attend. The closer you get to a schools range the easier it would most likely be to predict yield.

Think about it this way:

Reach: Very likely to attend 85% probably higherTarget: Likely to attend 50%Safety: Unlikely to attend 10%, and if No why essay probably a lot less likely

Now obviously those numbers are made up, but something similar. Now when schools are selecting a class they do want a good setup of students. Which they can get with safeties that show appropriate interest with regards to attending, target students that make up the bulk of their class, and a few reaches that they just really like their applications, leaving schools not wanting to have 1000 offers to safety applicants that have little to no desire to attend. I say 1000 offers being as those that would get into higher rated schools and yet still apply to Michigan showing little desire. These safety students also may surprisingly attend, over enrolling the class and causing problems. Having all those offers out to safeties does absolutely nothing for the school. Throwing them on a waitlist allows the student to show appropriate interest if they want, most of the truly YP will not show any interest though.

BTW, this is not gaming the USNews rankings as some have said. What they decide on applicantions is close to being completely irrelevant to their rankings.

I am in the top quarter of LSAT/GPA for Michigan, wrote a sincere Why Mich? essay, and I got waitlisted Friday along with everyone else. Michigan was one of my top choices, and if the money were right, I very well might have attended. I have two close friends who loved the law school there, so I came into my app process with a great impression of the school. I've gotten into two higher ranked schools, and I'm waiting to hear from three others. But I am of the mind that I would rather attend a 7-12 school with money than pay full price to go to a top 6. So if Michigan was YPing me just because they though I would go to a higher ranked school, they were wrong.

Even though I got dinged (I probably won't wait out the WL), I'm willing to give Michigan a bit more grace for what they did. I applied in December, not in the earliest batch of apps, but not in the latest batch. I didn't know that T14 schools were a possibility until I got my Sep LSAT score, so getting my apps out by December was the best I could do. In the case of Michigan this might have hurt me (although it hasn't hurt me yet at other places).

My theory is that Michigan truly underestimated the volume of applications they got in this cycle. Using their experience from previous years, they admitted people and gave out scholarship money at their usual pace. But come January, they realized that they had moved too fast. There was still a giant stack of apps they hadn't read, and they were running out of money and spots in the class. So they basically put the brakes on their app cycle and waitlisted a huge swath of good candidates they had not yet fully considered. But what criterion did they use? Well, they excluded the people who were unlikely to attend without significant scholarship offers. They were out of money, and admitting a 175+ just wasted an admission spot, since that person would not pay sticker for UM when they could pay the same sticker for CCN.

So my December app and my high LSAT score was a deadly combination. Now, sure, if I had been their ideal candidate, they would have found a place for me. But I guess I'm not, and the standard was too high for them at this point in the cycle to take a risk on me. I'm a bit bummed about it, but I have some other great options, and now I have one school off the table.

Applying to law school is like dating. Two people try to figure out who's right for them. Some applicant care about rankings. Some schools care about numbers. Others care about softs, etc. It's got to be a mutual match for a law school and an applicant to choose each other. As an applicant, I'd like all the schools to say they want me. But, that's not how it works.

awesomepossum wrote:What evidence? That high numbered people are rejected?

Here's my take on it. As your numbers get better and better, your odds of getting in get better and better. That number never quite hits 100% though.

Here is one thing...which might open a shitstorm of criticism in as of itself, but here it is. If admissions thinks you won't be a good fit or a good contributor to what we think of as a collegial environment, you're unlikely to be admitted. If admissions thinks that YOU think that you're just too cool for school, you're unlikely to be admitted.

How would anybody prove this? I have no idea. The good thing is that admissions doesn't have to.

If somebody is really desirable, there are things that the law school can do including throwing money at them. On the flip side, Dean Z has said that there are times she admits people while thinking that they're probably going somewhere else. Trust me... we have an ego. We think our law school is tres awesome and we expect that people will see that.

So let's look at yield protect. Yield (number of people who matriculate/number of people admitted) is not in the USNWR methodology. Acceptance rate is worth .025. For comparison, LSAT is worth .125 and GPA is worth .1. Given the number of people who have these kinds of astronomical numbers, how much does it move the dial to accept say... 10, 20 more high numbered folks? My guess is not that much. It would probably be more profitable rankings wise to accept them all. Acceptance rate is diluted through ALL THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY while LSAT and GPA numbers are only diluted through the pool of students who attend. Someday I'm going to run the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if it only took 1/50 or so high numbered people accepting to make it more profitable to accept all of them (just off the cuff the applicant pool roughly 5x student body size and then LSAT/GPA worth about 10x more than acceptance rate).

I still argue schools with small class sizes must yield protect; they can't admit just everyone they like so they must admit people they like and are likely to attend. Thus, the majority of students they admit would be in the ideal range of LSAT and GPA for the school and most likely to attend. The closer you get to a schools range the easier it would most likely be to predict yield.

Think about it this way:

Reach: Very likely to attend 85% probably higherTarget: Likely to attend 50%Safety: Unlikely to attend 10%, and if No why essay probably a lot less likely

Now obviously those numbers are made up, but something similar. Now when schools are selecting a class they do want a good setup of students. Which they can get with safeties that show appropriate interest with regards to attending, target students that make up the bulk of their class, and a few reaches that they just really like their applications, leaving schools not wanting to have 1000 offers to safety applicants that have little to no desire to attend. I say 1000 offers being as those that would get into higher rated schools and yet still apply to Michigan showing little desire. These safety students also may surprisingly attend, over enrolling the class and causing problems. Having all those offers out to safeties does absolutely nothing for the school. Throwing them on a waitlist allows the student to show appropriate interest if they want, most of the truly YP will not show any interest though.

BTW, this is not gaming the USNews rankings as some have said. What they decide on applicantions is close to being completely irrelevant to their rankings.

I'm trying to work the math right now but it turns out I am also a very lazy person. The reason why 'yield' as relates to high numbered people is relatively insignificant is:

-LSAT and GPA together is about 13x more important than acceptance rate.-A person who is accepted (or denied) doesn't move the needle much because they're considered in relation to the whole applicant pool for that school vs. LSAT and GPA which is considered in relation to the pool of students.-the number of 'high GPA/high LSAT' people isn't that large in relation to the pool.

Again, I'm trying hard to fight laziness and get it done and open to the rabid criticism I'm sure it'll endure. It doesn't help that USNWR doesn't publish the exact equations they use (as far as I know) although they do publish the weightings. If someone does have those exact equations, that would be awesome.

Helmholtz wrote:Also, I think LSN is really of limited value when looking at so small a number compared to the entire application pool.

Ok.

I think it's pretty clear when you take the same GPA, and the group with the higher LSAT (172-173) has a 56 percent acceptance rate and the group with the lower LSAT (169-170) has a 93 percent acceptance rate. LSN is a limited sample, for sure, but it's still useful and I can't think of any reason there would be such an enormous statiscal difference aside from YP.

1) I'm guessing there were a lot more ED applicants in the 169-170 group than there were in the 172-173 group, did you account for that?

nsfor2010 wrote:So farg, I have gotten into several schools that were reaches with my numbers and gotten more money at a couple schools than what others with similar numbers have posted on LSN. Obviously, I recognize that not every school will look at everything I submittefd and have the same reaction. Schools are looking for different things. But I also fall into the category of people who chose to withdraw from UM after getting the WL e-mail even though I would have thought about going there if I had gotten in. There e-mails were nice enough in tone but also condescending. More importantly, I just didn't feel like going through the WL process at a school that I even suspected of practicing YP to this degree. I think UM would be a great place to go to law school and wish everyone the best there. And UM must knw what they're doing after doing it successfully for so long. But I think there mighjt be good applicants that they would actually want at the school that were so turned off at being WL that they withdrew, however illogical one might think that is. Who knows, UM might know this but also believes that the net effect is beneficial.

If you look at the WL as a way of testing whether an applicant is truly committed to the school, then isn't the system actually working as it's supposed to? You say that you would have thought about going if you were admitted, but considering that you got into several of your reaches, how likely is it that you would've chosen Michigan in the end?

Ideally, a school would like to have 100% matriculation rate of admits, but realistically, schools realize that their applicants submit numerous applications to different schools. Whilst this is admittedly something of a spiral (applicants submit applications to more schools => schools become more discerning in their admissions process => applicants submit applications to even more schools to compensate for lower chances for admission at any single given school), law schools still don't want to end up admitting too many people who are likely to attend elsewhere. This is a headache to the school and vexing to other applicants with lower numbers who are more likely to attend if admitted.

If you call this YP, then all law schools (with a few possible exceptions) practice it.

If you were so slick Michigan would have offered you the Darrow. It is not unheard of for people to turn down CCN or higher to take the Darrow. If you get into Harvard and got waitlisted at Michigan ask yourself if you honestly put in the same amount of effort on both applications. If your 'why michigan' essay was uninspired and you have blazing numbers then it should come as no surprise that your application wasn't taken seriously. Put yourself in their shoes, it is not an adcomm's responsibility to boost your apparently fragile egos by giving out acceptances they know nobody will take.

Numbers are necessary, not sufficient. 25% of the class accepted at Michigan also has above 75th percentile scores and managed to avoid getting YP'ed. You're not that special.